On Feb 25, 2009, at 10:42:56, Quinn Taylor wrote: > So, does this mean that a package installer would be preferable to > the devs if someone made it available?
More precisely, a package installer on the Growl disk image, where the install.sh is now. > If it's just about installing these 2 items (the binary and man > page) it should be a fairly short wrestle. I agree that it should be. :-) > OTOH, if the desired result is to include the Extras as optional > installs (unselected by default, of course) in the main Growl > installer, it would take a tad longer, but would simplify the > install process significantly. Is there interest in having a unified > installer that allows users to select these options? Yeah. I believe that it's very common for users to update their Growl but forget to update GrowlMail, GrowlSafari, etc. A metapackage that brought all of them together would be very nice. (Custom installation option a must, of course.) > If so, I might be able to dedicate a few cycles to the cause... That would be awesome. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Growl Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
